madmitch

But didn't I read a report yesterday from a different source stating they expect Chinese numbers to reach pre-covid levels?

Tourists are back and it's like deja vu reading the Phuket news. Motorcycle rental operations should be licenced and punished if they allow those without a valid licence to rent bikes. I know it won't happen but it ain't rocket science!

The outgoing government have given two or three blocks of 3000 baht for the public to use on a 50/50 basis as well as the travel incentive schemes. Is this any different? Nevertheless, i did predict this on a thread on this forum as soon as the policy was announced.

I can only reiterate what others have said. Always reliable, accurate ans quick to answer any visa related problems. I great info from Joe on several occasions. RIP Joe. You'll be missed.

It seems quite possible that PT and MFP together could muster enough seats to get a house majority but not enough to elect a PM as the senate will likely vote en masse for one of those that "elected" them. The PM could have the power to elect a cabinet consisting of minority party members but would never get anything through Parliament. It sounds a ridiculous scenario. Am I misunderstanding something here?

Couldn't they say between 13,000 and 18,000? Nobody does stats like the Thais!

Let's hope that Thailand elects a Government that will get rid of ridiculous laws like these.

After the pandemic have they forgotten the annual event known as low season?

How can he make a comeback? He's never gone away...........................unfortunately!

I was back for three weeks and it was ridiculous. Yet I don't think I saw more than one person in all these shops together. One shop in a street would be plenty but it's like the watermelon sellers at the side of the road; one opens, that son becomes two until there are fifty people selling exactly the same thing, simply splitting the limited amount of business between them. Unless they are money laundering operations, I don't expect too many of them will last. I will add that the shops are possibly off-putting for family holidaymakers with kids.

Any party with anti-corruption policies that then proceeds to offer cash for votes is lying from the outset.

The gf's family have now got used to me wearing a seatbelt either as driver or passenger, regardless of the journey length. This time I had to remove a dummy buckle from the seatbelt socket; both driver and front passenger seats have these to stop the warning signal. I just don't get why there's a reluctance to embrace safety measures in Thailand.

It's too easy to set up in business as a motorbike rental operation. There are, simply, no rules at all. Why don't these operations require a licence and part of that licence being a course wherby the requirements are spelled out (driving licence, helmets, tax, insurance). We've had guests fined by the police for having a rental bike with an out of date tax disc! Of course most will sleep through the instructions but if the licence is lost as a result of non-compliance then they might actually take some notice. NB I realise that this will never happen!

I don't know how many, if any, foreign tourists come to Thailand specifically for Songkran. I'd guess the vast majority are here already and simply join in the fun for a day or two.

Just told the GF. She'd probably be doing a long stretch right now when taking to account the nober of cherries, strawberries and raspberries she's brought to Thailand from the UK!

I assume they're all watching the video in the second photo, just too confirm that their accusations were correct of course.

Same every year. Total waste of time.

Good question. Richard_Smith has quoted a few insurers regarding the alcohol issue and they will vary. NB note the simplistic language used in the first clause he mentioned. This is what we can expect to see on these policies; minimal legal jargon. Anyway, each insurer will have its own wording and it is up to the purchaser to read this. Cannabis is an interesting one. I've not yet seen cannabis specifically mentioned in insurance policies but it should be considered as a drug whether legal or not in either the home country or the country visited. Drinking or riding under the influence is illegal and insurers will decline claims if there's an accident where the insured has been using it. I'd like to see this issue of legality of certain drugs addressed more clearly in policies in order to avoid ambiguity.

Insurance regulation today is tougher than it has ever been, and that's on a worldwide basis.

I assume they will take a break between 2pm and 5pm as no alcohol is available at this time

I stated in a previous post that in the UK at least, insurers are having to make their policies for consumers simple and easy to understand. Certain clauses are difficult to draft without a certain amount of legalese but these are usually the more legal orientated clauses anyway, such as the privacy and arbitration clauses. You should find the coverage quite simple to understand and if it's too complicated, you can make a complaint.......assuming you can understand the Complaints Clause! Other countries, including Australia, are also simplifying their policies. The major exception is the USA, where I'm sure they keep their policies deliberately complicated in order to keep the lawyers in work!

Distributing government cash among large sections of the population will not help much, as each person will get only a small sum, he said. By narrowing the focus to cover only fragile groups, each will get enough funds to bear their cost of living, he explained. Very sensible comment. 10,000 baht is a small fortune to some, small change to others. I also wonder how those without access to smartphones will access their digital wallets.

You're right, however with travel insurance, the laws and jurisdiction of the home country would apply, however many countries do have similar rules. A policy should of course be drafted accordingly.

I don't think so. The forum's Valentine is an Aussie swimming pool builder, Richard Valentine runs a cigar lounge and is British.

Good to see a post from someone that actually understands the subject (there are a couple more as well) but I chose just to quote one. You are absolutely right about the small print certainly in UK policies, as insurance regulators have decreed that consumer policies, i.e. individuals and small businesses, must be made more simple and easy to understand. Those talking about small print must be living in the past or they're American, where the wordings are still pretty dreadful. It is no longer permissible under the UK Insurance Act 2015 to decline a claim based on a misrepresentation or breach or warranty or condition if the claim had nothing to do with the breach. So the poster who had a heart issue declined as a result of not answering the mental health question should have been paid out under UK law but not necessarily in other jurisdictions. All policies have complaints clauses and insurers take complaints very seriously. If you think you've had a claim wrongly declined then complain and if you get no joy from the insurers take it further. Details will be in the policy. EU law, which is still in force in the UK, insists that an Insurance Product Information Document (IPID) be issued for all consumer and SME products. This sets out in a simple list form the coverages and exclusions. It's not a perfect document as the size is limited but those that don't want to read the policy can get the basics from this document. It was also stated by someone that exclusions should actually be in larger print, rather than the imaginary small print. French law does insist on exclusions being clearer and Insurers lost a high profile case fairly recently based upon this law. It is uniquely French, however. Good claims assessors/adjusters will know pretty soon whether or not they should be looking at the exclusions, terms and conditions but many claims are very straightforward and will be paid out without question. It's commonly believed that the first thing they do is find a reason not to pay a claim. This might be the case with some but not any I've ever worked with. Underwriting ability should be such that the company should still make a profit after paying out all genuine claims and actuaries are employed universally to help calculate the premiums. I could go on but I believe that most insurance companies and Lloyd's Syndicates are rather more scrupulous than most on here perceive. And I wonder how many disparaging posters have had genuine claims, without breaches of terms and conditions, declined? Or how many simply believe the hype!